User talk:Number 57/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

With regard to

Hi

There's no need to be defensive. I enjoyed reading your article. I honestly thought it was a typo, so corrected it. It now appears that you're determined to maintain the error, which, make no mistake, it is.

'With regards to' is a mistake. Regards are good wishes.

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/mistakes-with-regard/

http://soloprpro.com/11-grammar-mistakes-that-make-you-sound-like-a-pompous-jerk/

https://www.espressoenglish.net/business-english-common-writing-mistakes/

http://community.jobscentral.com.sg/articles/5-email-terms-you-are-misusing

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/regard-versus-regards

I could go on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.218.180 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an error. Have a look at this ("in regards to, which, according to our data, is used nearly twice as often as in regard to") or this ("But while some people continue to insist that using regards in place of regard is simply incorrect, the old distinction is not consistently borne out in real-world, 21st-century usage. Regards is commonly used both ways, both in edited writing and elsewhere.") Cheers, Number 57 16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Both sources identify this usage as incorrect, yet make the observation that the mistake is common. I don't doubt this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.218.180 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No they don't. Re-read the second one in particular please and respect WP:BRD. Number 57 17:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's your article, and your mistake- I will let you have it. I still think that it's strange to insist on keeping an 's' on the end of a word, when there is not a shred of evidence that 'with regard to' is incorrect, an abundance of evidence that 'with regards to' is a mistake, and some fairly obvious observations that it's a common error. Seeing as that my edit didn't make it wrong in any way, it seems strange to insist on the error. But, as I said, it's your article. I hope that your stubbornness won't prevent you from quietly acknowledging errors in future, as it has on this occasion.--92.207.218.180 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.218.180 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check my edit

Could you please check it [1] mainly grammar but maybe NPOV too but morris widely cited in the article so the should be no problem thanks.--Shrike (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike: It doesn't seem problematic, although p418 of the book is not visible to me so I can't verify what you have added. I would't be surprised to see it reverted though as I recall another article on an Arab village that had quite a bit of text on the Israeli destruction of it, but when a couple of sentences detailing the villagers' attacks on a nearby Jewish village were added, they were initially removed despite good sourcing, and when the info was readded, it was tagged as being 'undue weight'... Number 57 11:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks the books is available via google search.It says that the most of the anti-Yishuv activities were during 1936-1939(probably it means Arab revolt)--Shrike (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Message

Hi there,

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Bonaire elections.

Can you share your thoughts?

--RaviC (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jumaa Azbarga

Since MK Basel Ghattas cuts plea bargain agreement [2], in which he also will resign the knesset, the next in line to succeed him is Jumaa Azbarga [3](or maby spelled also Juma). would you like to write the article on him? here is the link to the Hebrew wikipedia article on him [4] --Midrashah (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Midrashah: Thanks for the heads up. Juma seems to be more common, so it's at Juma Azbarga. Number 57 22:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of International Elections Advisory Council

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from International Elections Advisory Council, which you proposed for deletion. I tried to edit the information and improve the article to address the concerns raised by you, which I found perfectly understandable. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't hesitate to let me know how do you think it could be improved before listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! E-DemSnoopy (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Folkestone Invicta F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hythe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pakistani general elections, 2013

Why do the infobox of Pakistani elections keep getting messed around??

Well, the issue is that there have been several bye-elections on vacated seats since the May 2013 general elections, so the seat count fluctuates. And as a rule, all bye-elections are seen as extensions of the general elections because the new members only get elected till the next general round.

This is where you can find the most updated count: http://na.gov.pk

- Wiki.0hlic

@Wiki.0hlic: Election infoboxes show the results of the election that the article refers to and should not be updated to reflect subsequent by-elections. Cheers, Number 57 20:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Got you, thanks for the clarification! - Wiki.0hlic

Template

Hi, a question; do you think is a good idea to include primary elections on the template of elections of some countries? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: No, because they aren't national elections. Number 57 22:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

But isn't a similar case than the local or state election then? In some countries more people vote on the primaries than in the municipal elections (Argentina for example). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: Individual local elections aren't linked – it's articles about the nationwide ones that are (e.g. United Kingdom local elections, 2014). Number 57 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not completely convince. Do you take into account how massive some primaries are? First they are done in every part of the countries; each canton of Costa Rica, each comune of Chile, etc. Second in some of them vote more people than in municipal elections (and yes, I mean nation-wide municipal or local elections) for example more people voted in Uruguay's last primary election than its last municipal elections. What exactly encompasses the definition of national then? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq (࿓) 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My pronouns

are "they", "them", "their", "themself". No big deal and no offense taken. I see that yours are "he" etc., and I apologize for using "they" for you. Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 13:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On Faroese election articles

Might I ask why you think a smaller, more excel-like infobox is more suitable for Faroese election articles? R3troguy420 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the elections use a proportional system where there are a relatively large number of parties with relatively small differences in the number of seats. {{Infobox election}} is better suited to presidential elections or legislative elections where there are a small number of large parties who win an amount of seats a magnitude greater than the smaller parties. When one of these infoboxes is applied to a proportional election like the Faroes, they become unreasonably large and are no longer an effective summary, which is what infoboxes are meant to be. {{Infobox legislative election}} is specifically designed for elections where there are no clear differences in terms of seats between the large and small parties, hence its use in articles like Dutch general election, 2017, Serbian parliamentary election, 2016 or Israeli legislative election, 2015. Number 57 19:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Farsley Celtic F.C.

Hi, now that Category:Farsley Celtic F.C. has been renamed, would you like to follow up with the sub-cats? – Fayenatic London 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Apologies, I forgot to respond to this. I was going to wait a while to see whether my merge from Farsley Celtic A.F.C. to Farsley Celtic F.C. held up before merging/renaming the cats. Cheers, Number 57 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I understood from this [5] that it was established. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: It's a bit complicated. Basically the original club was Farsley Celtic A.F.C.; they were bankrupt and reformed as Farsley A.F.C.. The club then sought to go back to its original name, so were renamed Farsley Celtic F.C.. After the bankruptcy, someone created a new article for Farsley A.F.C. rather than renaming the original article. Farsley A.F.C. was then moved (via cut & paste) to the current title when they were renamed (this is why the category for Farsley A.F.C. was eligible for a move via speedy). I recently merged the two articles as we mostly treat cases like this as a continuation of the original club rather than a separate one (see, for example, Newport County A.F.C.; the original Newport folded in 1989, were reformed as Newport A.F.C. and then adopted the name Newport County again at a later date). Number 57 23:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

But the categories all include "Celtic"... Anyway, so long as it's on your radar to do it eventually, that's fine by me. Thanks – Fayenatic London 23:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Forest Green Rovers F.C.

added a link pointing to Forest Green

Forest Hill Park F.C.

added a link pointing to Forest Hill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul Cooper

Hello. The books say remarkably little. Matthews (1995) page 79 lists the early part of his career as:

Kingswood Sec Mod School, Staffs County Boys, Boney Hay Juniors, Cannock Athletic, Sutton Coldfield Town, Birmingham (apprentice June 1971, pro July 1971)

He played first-team football for Sutton Town, not RS, obviously, but it justifies putting them in senior rather than youth career. As to birthplace, Matthews gives Brierley Hill, but birth records, which we can't use for BLPs, would support Cannock.

It appears one can't send attachments via Wikipedia email, so if you send me your email addy, I can return PDFs of some newspaper pages that might help (only 4, don't worry), and should source the ramblings below. The count of games played in, goals conceded etc come from each season's results/lineups at Matthews (1995) pages 207-209. The chronology goes:

1971/72: Mike Kelly was #1 keeper, but damaged knee cartilage in December, so reserve keeper Dave Latchford came in. Then he broke a finger, so Cooper made his debut v Portsmouth on 8 January, aged 18 years and 18 days. I'd forgotten quite how young he was... We won 6-3 and he kept his place for 5 league games and 2 FA Cup before Latchford came back in. His form dipped. and with 7 league games left, Cooper came back in for the rest of the season, including the lively little fixture that clinched promotion. Apart from the cup SF, he was never on the losing side, and kept 7 clean sheets in 12 league matches.

1972/73: Cooper started the season as first choice, played 3 conceded 6, lost his place to Kelly, who did just as poorly, and Latchford became keeper of choice for that season.

1973/74: Similar: Latchford started the season, played 4 conceded 8, Cooper played 2 conceded 7, Latchford went back in and then they bought Sprake.

Matthews (1995) is {{cite book |last=Matthews |first=Tony |title=Birmingham City: A Complete Record |date=1995 |publisher=Breedon Books |location=Derby |isbn=978-1-85983-010-9}}

Please feel free to use as much or as little as you think fit. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You have mail... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The newspaper pages come from http://www.ukpressonline.co.uk which I can access via an academic library subscription. As to Bumphrey, the Matthews book source in the article gives July 1915 as date of joining. If you're right about the foundation date, he must have been mistaken. Unless there was an earlier, maybe short-lived club? No idea... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Prince Consort Road stadium

You are correct that "Stadiums at National League level are notable", but that's not relevant here because this stadium never existed. I'm also not sure why you bring up the Victoria Stadium, as it hosted National League football for three seasons. The rest of the argument seems to be largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ignoring the fact that those stadiums are for clubs at a far higher level than Gateshead (I'd expect New Queens Park to be deleted if it never happens tbh). Number 57 09:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is your argument if not "other stuff doesn't exist", then? Neither the level Gateshead play at nor the fact that the stadium didn't exist made it non-notable before it was cancelled. The only thing that made it non-notable in your opinion, and the only thing that would make New Queens Park non-notable, is the passage of time. So this is a case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Chi Sigma (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chi Sigma: Stadiums that have hosted national-level sport are deemed notable, but this stadium couldn't meet that criteria by virtue of not having ever hosted national sport (as it didn't exist). As an example, if Southport were moving to a new stadium next season (which they look likely to be in National League North), that stadium wouldn't be notable by virtue of them currently being in the National League – it would only become notable once they had played there in the National League. This isn't an "other stuff doesn't exist" argument, it's an "other stuff isn't deemed notable" argument. Anyway, the outcome of the AfD was fairly conclusive. Cheers, Number 57 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You've gone wrong in the first sentence there, because Stanley Park Stadium couldn't meet that criterion either. There are clearly additional criteria, that currently exist only in your mind, for the notability of never-constructed stadiums. Please help Wikipedia by telling us what they are. Chi Sigma (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chi Sigma: I haven't gone wrong; Stanley Park Stadium doesn't meet that criteria either. Presumably it's deemed notable for other reasons that Prince Consort Road stadium isn't (such as WP:GNG). Personally I wouldn't have any articles on stadium projects that have been scrapped. Number 57 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: There is nothing in the notability guidelines for geographic features that says a building is notable only when it's intended to be built, and non-notable when it's scrapped. "Scrapped" is not a word that means anything in the context of notability. And the general guidelines say that notability is not temporary! So if Tottenham's or Brentford's or Gateshead's proposed and notable new stadium doesn't go ahead, that wouldn't reduce its notability. It may not have been notable to begin with, but that's a separate point from the one you were making. It's not a "personal choice" thing - it's an established principle of Wikipedia that notability is not temporary. Chi Sigma (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chi Sigma: I'm slightly confused by what you seem to be trying to point out; I never said anything was notable when it was intended to be built, but not notable when it was scrapped; the article should never have been started in the first place. Also, you don't have to ping me on my own talk page. Number 57 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you did. Your deletion proposal was based on the fact that it never materialised. You said so in the first sentence. And you said New Queens Park should be deleted if it never happens. And you said that you wouldn't have any articles on stadium projects that have been scrapped. At what point during a stadium's construction do you deem it worthy of an article? Either there are specific notability guidelines for football stadiums, in which case "other stuff exists" is perfectly valid reasoning, or they are subject to general notability guidelines, in which case the rule seems to be that if it happens more than 100 miles away from London it isn't notable. Chi Sigma (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Buhari

Are you interested in bringing Buhari under good article review. I already put a message on user Everking's page for help. The article will probably be edited heavily for the next few years and I am trying to make it NPOV and placed under good article status during the period.

Hey, The Grenada Topic

I am currently adding the results and I will add a ref and cites after I finished putting all the information

The invalid numbers for each question of the referendum are official results. By all means add in the invalid/blank

The invalid for each question of the referendum are official results, so I do not know why you keep deleting them as it is official results from PEOGrenada. User:Kylekieran

Well I do have the source and I can not get that you think I got out of date source as I checked within four hour to now

This is the source, if you do not believe and you need to sign up or log in first to see the result. http://www.peogrenada.org/refsoftapp/PD/BillStatus

And also I am going to complete all the parishes elections stats later today, so do not delete them please and also it is all up to date due to 100% completed result courted. User:Kylekieran

Salvadorian Election 2015

Hi, when adding the leaders of the political parties to the El Salvador election in 2015 page, could you not link the names if they don't exist as it makes the article look broken, it could just be kept as text instead.

Also on the page you changed the colour of ARENA to bright blue, one that is never used by the party, so could you change it back to the colour that I changed it to please?

Thanks for your contributions! SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@SantiagoFrancoRamos: The colour of Arena is defined at {{Nationalist Republican Alliance/meta/color}}; you can change it there if required. You don't need to add the colour function to infoboxes when parties have this template. With regards to the redlinks for party leaders, the idea is that it will encourage someone to create the missing articles – it doesn't make the article look broken. Please don't put N/A when you don't know the names – N/A means not applicable, which is only appropriate for the electoral cartels. Cheers, Number 57 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to update the colour but it doesn't appear to have changed it on any of the links that it has been used on? SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SantiagoFrancoRamos: It shows up as dark blue wherever I look. You probably need to clear your cache. Try opening an article for editing and you'll see. Number 57 18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I just looked on the article and that has changed to dark blue but when I go to the 2015 Election it uses the old colour? SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SantiagoFrancoRamos: It's dark blue on the 2015 article too. Click on "Edit" and you'll see it change. Number 57 18:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yeah it's done now, thanks for the help! SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Saarland state election, 2017

Hello Number 57, would you please take a look at the infobox and the results of the Saarland state election, 2017 article? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: What exactly is the problem? Is it because it's unsourced? Number 57 14:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the SPD results in the infobox and results section differ. One has them holding stedy and the other has them losing a seat. 1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Sorted. Number 57 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments at ARCA

Hi Number57, I was amazed to see your comments just now at ARCA, as I hold the opposite understanding as to which group of editors hold numerical superiority. I consider you to be a balanced and thoughtful editor, so your comments hold weight with me. I would be very interested to understand the basis on which you have reached this conclusion.

As an aside, I consider that of the "good" editors in the space:

1. there are few if any who can be considered wholly neutral (just as there are few if any scholars in the field who are perceived as wholly neutral)
2. good editors are not "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian", but pro-balance (per WP:IPCOLL). However, that pro-balance view usually shows itself in efforts to remove Israeli POV or Palestinian POV (which is often perceived as pro-P or pro-I, despite nobler intentions)
3. the primary mark of a good editor is respect for discussion and scholarship, and an open-minded approach to other people's viewpoints and arguments

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I reached that conclusion based on knowing who edits in that topic area. There are a small number of editors who I consider balanced (Al Ameer son and Bolter21 are two, but I would struggle to name more than five). I have no respect for editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to skew articles in favour of their particular POV and most of the editors in this sphere are little more than SPAs. Number 57 12:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I know who edits too, yet as I sketch it out in my mind I come to the opposite conclusion. Is there anything objective you can point to?

On balanced editors, it's really only five in your mind? I consider both Zero and Debresser to be balanced, for example. My simple method for judging an editor's balance based on their reactions to inconvenient yet well sourced facts. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a list in my head and one is a lot longer than the other, particularly taking into account the volume of the edits (pro-Palestinian editors tend to be more SPA-types that are solely focused on the I-P sphere, whereas some of the pro-Israel ones have other focuses but occasionally edit this topic); my method for assessing balance is largely through editing habits, particularly the material they add or delete (generally editors are quite consistent in deleting material that makes their side look bad or the other good, and adding material that's vice versa), or the wording/definitions they attempt to get into articles, but also to do with which side they take in debates (this is predictable with 99% accuracy). The list of balanced editors is actually probably less than five. I am very surprised that anyone could see one of the two editors you have listed as being balanced. Number 57 13:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with the analysis in your "particularly taking into account..." clause for two reasons:

(1) you denigrate "focus" as if it's a disqualifying factor, whilst in the real world "focus" is the only way to become really valuable to a particular field of study, and you ignore other much more relevant factors such as editing style and quality, NPOV intentions (whether perceived or actual), openness to reasoned argument, and resourcefulness and quality of sourcing

(2) I suspect from your definition that you define "outside interests" in an unfair manner. Chesdovi and Debresser also edit topics related to the Jewish religion, which is outside I-P (but some is adjacent), you edit in areas of Israeli politics which are outside I-P (but also some is adjacent), Nishidani edits in areas of Jewish history (also outside but some is adjacent), Huldra edits in areas of Palestinian history and culture (again outside I-P but some is adjacent) and I edit in Middle Eastern archaeology (also outside but some is adjacent).

One of the reasons for the divide is the two parallel narratives that exist, both of which are reputably sourced. We discuss this at WP:IPCOLL. The idea of changing the rules to get rid of the focused editors (which comprise most of the editors who know a lot about the subject) would be deeply damaging to IPCOLL's goals of working to combine the narratives.

I think we shouldn't spend time speculating on which side is more numerate, which I suspect we wouldn't agree on even if we wrote down all the names in a table, but instead focus on ensuring that the quality of editors in the area is of the highest standard.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I wouldn't expect you to agree, seeing as you fit quite clearly into one of those groups. Editing style and quality are irrelevant if what is being added is consistently biased. I have no problem with focused editors (I am a great admirer of some in the election and football spheres that I largely work in). What I do have a problem with are editors who are only interested in promoting one side and denigrating the other. In this sphere, there is a strong crossover between the two behavioural traits. Number 57 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem here is that your ability to AGF in the IP area has been reduced too far. Your suggestion of less than five balanced editors would suggest so. If you care enough about your hypothesis here, could I encourage you to test it properly. Don't just rely on anecdotal evidence from arguments you see on talk pages, as they are not representative.

To illustrate, imagine an editor who makes 95% good and balanced edits, and 5% edits which corrects facts considered to previously favor one side. You will only ever see those 5% discussed on talk, which will give you the false impression of an unbalanced editor.

Admittedly in my list in my head I also have you clearly in one of those groups (the other one to where you have almost certainly put me...), but I consider your involvement in IP to be of great value. With good, reasonable and thoughtful editors on both sides, working together with mutual respect and (some) trust, we will make Wikipedia the most valuable resource on the IP topic.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I am not relying on anecdotal evidence; I have seen this at first hand for over a decade. And the majority of editors in this sphere are making Wikipedia one of the least valuable resources on the IP topic because of the sheer amount of bias they are introducing. Given the repeated failed of ARBCOM to properly address the problem, I have long considered doing a proper collection of evidence on the problem and passing it to an investigative journalist as it's got to the stage where I think only outside embarrassment might lead to action being taken.

As for what you think of me, I have no problems saying that my work in this sphere for the last few years has largely been pushing back against pro-Palestinian editors like yourself, but this is more to do with the fact that you and your allies have been the ones in the ascendancy during this time, and so are the ones whose POV I am more likely to come across and need to counteract. However, for the first few years I spent most of my time battling the pro-Israel editors, who were the dominant force in the mid-2000s (as a result of my efforts on this front, there was an attempt by a group of them to stop me becoming an admin; my sole block was for attempting to preserve NPOV on the far-right Eretz Yisrael Shelanu party when the notorious pro-Israel POV warrior Shuki was inserting his usual bias). Number 57 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so to build on this whilst returning to my initial point, because most editors on the other side from you consider that pro-Israel editors are in the ascendancy today (even if less so than a decade ago, which I can'f comment on), their motivations and justifications are exactly the same as yours, word for word.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I'm sure they're happy to state that pro-Israel editors are in the majority to try and cover up the fact that the opposite is true, I can't seriously believe that any pro-Palestinian editors really think they are in a minority; whilst they are obviously editors with an agenda, they are far from stupid. It's an insult to my intelligence to be told their motivations are the same as mine.

Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere and I'd rather get back to football and election articles. Number 57 22:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 in Romania

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 in Romania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD withdrawal re: Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo?

Would you be willing to withdraw your deletion nomination? I've re-created both articles in the draft space, and would rather work there than deal with opposition or have editors waste time contributing to an AfD discussion when I'm fine with redirecting and working in the draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: No, they're not notable, so creating a draft article is pointless. I would advise taking on board the comments from everyone else in the AfD and not trying to create articles on things that happen to appear in the news. Number 57 17:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, had to ask, but thanks anyway. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Micronesian parliamentary election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuuk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Check this please

I would like your opinion on this article New Majority presidential primary, 2013, do you think it does need the template? it use to have "rough translate" but I thought it was too extreme of a template. What do you think? --TV Guy (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@TV Guy: Yes, I think the template is required; whilst I can understand what the person writing the article was trying to convey, sentences like "In addition, it had as a novelty that it participated more than two candidates, unlike the previous primary elections of the coalition, in it they faced - according to the order in which they appeared in the ballot" have numerous errors and awkward phrasing. Number 57 22:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, I just wanted to check it out. --TV Guy (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cooper

Hey, great work on expanding that. I'm sure you've covered it all but I'll just check any paper sources I have to see if I can add anything further. Oddly I was just digging through a bunch of that stuff today because Chris Kiwomya, Steve McCall and David Rose were added to the Ipswich Town F.C. Hall of Fame, and was keeping it up to date. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Cheers, that would be great. I'm planning on doing the whole 80–81 squad over the next year or so (with the exception of Wark as he's already an FA) and getting them all on the front page in some form or another. My only annoyances with the Cooper article were not being able to uncover the total number of penalties he saved in his career and the fact that we don't have a photo. I've asked the club if they'd be willing to put some into the public domain, and whilst the response so far has been positive, they've said they can't really do anything until the season is over. Number 57 22:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well anything I can do to help, just let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953)

On 6 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ipswich Town goalkeeper Paul Cooper saved eight out of the ten penalties he faced during the 1979–80 season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike - beyond the wikilawyering, a pattern of disruption

If you had checked my comment to her on talk you would see she added back in content that I removed as well as removing content that I had added. There is also the general disruptive pattern of her editing and her disrupting the consensus process by filing frivolous ARBCOM requests without making any effort at prior dispute resolution - which is strongly encouraged, and the committee should enforce it. I would have self-reverted, as I was unaware that my revert fell within the consensus clause. It's that simple. I included the details in my comments, which I assume the admins did not read before dismissing my complaint as frivolous, but I don't know how to cite that with diffs because I am new. Seraphim System (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ADDED: I have added diffs. I believe restoring content that was removed for policy reasons violates the spirit of the consensus clause. I don't file frivolous complaints, unlike User:Shrike. I have also taken the advice of other editors and tried to reduce my involvement in I/P, in general, but I resent the disruption of consensus building on an unrelated article by digging up issues that have already been resolved outside ARBCOM. I also object to your comment that I am filing frivolous complaints - I think this is a serious violation, and not the first from this editor. User:Shrike is WP:NOTTHERE. Seraphim System (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Marron

On 12 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chris Marron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chris Marron jointly holds the record for the most goals scored in an FA Cup match, having scored 10 in one game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Marron. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chris Marron), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electoral system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electorate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Community settlements of Israel in regional councils = BE vs AE usage?

User:Number 57, does British usage outlaw the definite article before _PROPER NOUN Regional Council_ in the construction "...under the jurisdiction of [] NAME Regional Council"? Did you know that in American English it's required, as per all these edits I'm making? This is a long series of edits I'm peforming to manually correct "communal settlement" in all the places where no English-language editor bothered, when the Hebrew-to-English translation of yishuv kehilati was changed from the incorrect "communal" [settlement] to "community" [settlement]. If your removing the definite article, the effort and time you're devoting, is based on BE usage with which I'm unfamiliar and have treated as an error requiring correction - I'll leave the omission (wrong as it appears to me) in place. And if you're interested - are you perhaps willing to share the communal>community correction task with me, or even automate it with a bot? (I merely started systematically with Northern Israel as that's where I live). Kindly let me know how we might proceed more productively..-- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
ETA afterthought: I would have appreciated a note on my User page, that you'd found I made dozens ("tens") of repeats of the same error which you felt necessary to correct - lest I go on and on and create more work for you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Yes, we don't use "the" in front of a council's name; I wasn't aware that American English required it. I can do the communal to community via AWB if you want it all done quickly? Cheers, Number 57 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think the change would be suitable for handling via AWB, I'm all for it. What information would you need? We're talking about piped links where [[communal settlement (Israel)|communal settlement]] is replaced by [[community settlement (Israel)|community settlement]]. These occur in two sorts of pages: that of the settlement itself, in running text, and on the page of a regional council with one settlement or more of this type. In this latter case, the term may appear in running text and as a heading (format: bold, capitalized). Awaiting your advice, thanks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: On AWB I can select all incoming links to Communal settlement (Israel) and then do a search & replace to fix community settlement. This can be case sensitive. I will have a go tomorrow. Number 57 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Think it's all done now. Sorry for the delay. Number 57 20:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making the automated swap. Was there much to it? I'm looking forward to seeing the results - but just now I chose two Regional Councils at random and neither (!) showed the required changes because the content had been set up in an irregular format with errors that required manual correction. It won't be long before I do a systematic check. I'll keep you informed. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: No, just a case of selecting "What links here" for Communal settlement (Israel) and then setting AWB up to search and replace the names. It wouldn't pick up anything that wasn't linked though, which explains those ones. Cheers, Number 57 20:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Boskovski

On base on what the article of Kristijan Boskovski is requested to be deleted? Dates are clearly stated in what period he was a player there. Thanks, Klasyk17 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Great Yarmouth FC

Yes I am very close to him,there's references where he played.. if you can clarify the link he is mentioned as a pro football NOT amateur,he played somewhere in a non league club but currently is a free agent. Klasyk17 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Top level leagues which are not fully professional

Hi! In the belief tht you are an expert in football leagues I would like to ask you following: Can you please check whether the Turkish Women's First Football League meets the criteria to be included into the Top level leagues which are not fully professional - Women's leagues? If yes, it would help me to create articles about women's football players from that league. Thank you for your time. CeeGee 05:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I see, not worthy to deserve a respond. CeeGee 04:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@CeeGee: Apologies, I missed the message. I would suspect that the league is not fully-professional as there are very few women's leagues that are. However, I will do some research later. Number 57 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. What I am asking is whether that league is suitable to be included into the the "Football/Top level leagues which are not fully professional". Because an article of player ı created, who had completed one full season in this league, was deleted. I wonder it would not have been deleted if the league was in the list of not-fully professinal ones. CeeGee 10:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@CeeGee: It would still have been deleted. It needs to be in the list of fully-professional leagues for an article to be kept on this basis. I haven't found out much about the league, but this would suggest that it isn't fully professional as the players interviewed either have other main jobs or are students. Number 57 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot indeed. Your explanations were very useful for me. I understood the matter now. Have a nice day. CeeGee 03:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Regions" vs "Autonomic" or whatever

Hi! I saw you reverted my moves from Spanish "regional" election articles, where I had re-named them as "autonomic" instead. My intent on this was to pave the way for a future re-naming of the individual election articles, given that they currently use the generic "parliamentary" type (which I myself added back on its time just to have a common name for all Spanish regional elections, due to the existing articles having varying and unconsistent names). However, "parliamentary" is too generic (indeed, we could also think that Congress and Senate elections in each community would also be "parliamentary elections"; or Basque foral elections, which are also parliamentary, as well as Island Council elections. Or even municipal elections); regional elections in other areas in the world don't tend to use the "parliamentary" type in the title and I also believe that it's outdated (given that I used it on its day to have a common, coherent title for all regions without thinking too much on whether it was to be a definitive or provisional name). We also have the issue that the names for the general articles (such as Spanish regional elections, 2015) do not match those for each of the individual ones, which is weird.

While the elections are "regional" in nature, such a term is not used at all in Spain to refer to these, no matter how "vastly more appropriate" we could find it (and I'm of this thought, actually). Indeed, "regional" results in other countries do not follow such a pattern:

• In Germany (which would be a country with many similarities with Spain in terms of federalization and de-centralization), these are called "state elections".
• In the United Kingdom you may find the Scottish Parliament election, 2016, National Assembly for Wales election, 2016, Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2016 or London Assembly election, 2016.
• Italy and France do indeed have them named as regional elections. But that would be because the first-level administrative divisions in both Italy and France are, indeed, officially called as "regions" (in Spain those are called "autonomous communities").
• In Canada those are dubbed as "general elections".

And all of these are regional in nature, with all names complying with WP:NCGAL. Yet they do not set out a pattern as to how regional elections should be named, except that each country seems to use the name in which they're mostly known in these. So, while we may find "regional" more appropiate given the nature of the elections, "autonomic" (or "autonomy"/"autonomous" or whatever, since I've also seen these to be used) is more accurate and specific (or "foral", for the case of Navarre). I don't mind to stick with "regional" but that'd be weird since there are no administrative "regions" in Spain (despite that, geographically, they can indeed be dubbed as such). Impru20 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: I have no problem with some kind of standardisation of the individual articles for the different regions, but the term "autonomic" just doesn't work. There isn't a strict naming convention, so I think we would have to resort to looking at the WP:COMMONNAME, and that would almost certainly be "regional" (see e.g. BBC or CNN). Cheers, Number 57 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd then go with "regional", eventually, though I hope this doesn't cause user conflicts in some communities (the Basque Country and, specially, Catalonia, with all the independence stuff greatly polarizing regional politics). Also, I'm fairly unsure as to what to do with regional elections in Castilla-La Mancha and Castile and León (so far, these are the only ones not complying with WP:NCGAL, because I was (and still am) unsure of their demonyms ("Castilian-Leonese" and "Castilian-Manchegan"?)). Impru20 (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Russian language favour

Hi, sorry for the delay. I went over the source and indeed the votes are 1842 blank/invalid, of them 983 blank. However, the numbers in general don't really add up. For example, 1842 + 31626 = 33468, higher by more than 100 than the total number of voters who participated in the referendum. Ignoring the possibility of fraud by those counting, it could be that the total number of voters was taken from actual voter registration numbers, while the vote counts are actual full counts. This indicates some fraud among voters, who might have voted more than once. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Armenian election infobox

what's wrong with infobox? it has more info, photos of party leaders, it is similar to most parliamentary election articles' infoboxes and at the end it just looks better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dododorodo (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dododorodo: That infobox is designed more for presidential or two-party elections. The current infobox is specifically designed for parliamentary elections where several parties win seats and where the party leaders are not as important as presidential candidates would be, hence no reason for pictures of them.

Also, logging out and continuing to make the same set of edits is effectively sockpuppetry and will get you permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Number 57 12:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Now I acknowledge that one should not keep redoing the same changes after they are undone. But since Armenian constitutional referendum, 2015, Armenia was changed it's semi-presidential system into parliamentary system. So, there won't be presidential elections anymore (President will be appointed by Parliament), prime minister becomes de facto the leader of the country and now party leaders are more important (Usually party leader of winning party becomes prime minister). Examples of articles of parliamentary one-round elections in parliamentary countries with similar infoboxes are articles about parliamentary elections in UK, Italy, Germany, Austria, Latvia Lithuania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dododorodo (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See Dutch general election, 2017, Israeli legislative election, 2015 etc. Number 57 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bahamian general election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United People's Movement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Number_57 reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: ). Thank you. Kzl55 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Template protection?

Did you really mean to template protect Ministry of Health (Israel)‎, Soroka Medical Center‎, and Clalit Health Services‎? – Train2104 (t • c) 14:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: Yes, they've all been the repeated target of SPA socks repeatedly inserting material about the death of a patient. See [6][7][8][9][10] Cheers, 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs, I don't see why semi-protection wouldn't have sufficed in this case. Using template protection on an article seems odd to me. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: I did originally try semi-protection on Ministry of Health (Israel),[11] but it appears one of the socks is somehow autoconfirmed and was able to continue editing.[12]. Number 57 18:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Falsification on Palestine national football team, again...

Hello, once again there is a falsification of Palestine national football team history by inserting the history of the Israeli one (as mandatory Palestine) by the same editor (and the same refuted source). I have already addressed this issue in the past on your talk page (here) including a discussion on WT:FOOTY (here) which gained a complete consensus not to include the disputed content (note that admin Dweller even suggested to include the page under WP:ARBPIA) of course there was also the discussion (which you have visited yourself ) on talk page (here) with no response to my sources. I see no longer a reason to engage the editor and waste my time reverting all over again. Can you take care of the issue? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom: I've reverted the problematic edits. @Redstriker06: If you make those changes again, you will be blocked for a week. Any future attempts beyond that will result in blocks of increasing length until you are indefinitely blocked. Number 57 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Infantom:@Number 57: Yes, this isn't the first time I bring the issue up but all I am doing is replicating the information found on FIFA's official website which allocates the games played by Mandatory Palestine to the modern Palestine national team and not Israel. This can be found on FIFA's website (I include the citation in the edit made). I am not sure why this is such a problem.--Redstriker06 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Redstriker06: You have been advised by multiple other editors that the part of the FIFA website you are referencing appears to be a mistake or database error and is contradicted by other FIFA documents that are more definitive (see e.g. this, which states "The modern Palestine, an Arab state, has no connection with the Palestine (then a British mandate) delegations that played in the qualifying games for 1934 & 1938 under the name of Hitachduth Eretz Yisraelit Lakadur Regel." or this, which states the Palestinian FA was founded in 1962). Number 57 14:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2018

Why are you removing poll results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.2.2 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Because only polls for the entire country should be listed, not ones for individual constituencies. Number 57 21:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan doesn't have that many polls to begin with. I would contend that all these data points are important. If you want you can create two separate tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4502:3EA9:B5B7:5BC1:73B1:30CD (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some input in resolving an edit dispute?

Hello Number 57. I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user GiantSnowman need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning the kit section that was in the Nigerian national football team article. He removed it citing WP:NOTGALLERY. I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at WikiProject Football. We request the input of members of this project in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Algerian legislative election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dignity Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

2017-18 Northern Prem

Afternoon..... i'm just checking, you are going to "undo" the page back to how i had set it up once the AGM has decided on the teams. i did put at the top that it was pending ratification from the AGM, but so long as i/we don't have to write it all out again :) I've no idea who the anonymous person is.... probably a south shield fan just happy to see their team in the league ;) User:GNEbandit (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@GNEbandit: Yes, of course. Number 57 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Fab. thank you User:GNEbandit (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Iranian parliamentary districts

why are you do this, this, this, this, this and this? Iran has 207 constituencies in 31 provinces. Can be all of them in one template?!

also you nominate Gilan Province parliamentary districts for deletion. Are you see the last edit of that page? I was extended that article and added so many sources to it. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Benyamin-ln: Yes, they can all be in the template. I nominated Gilan Province parliamentary districts for deletion because it's a completely pointless article – the results should be in the constituency articles. Cheers, Number 57 14:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

English football updater

Just a note that the English football updater is being regularly removed as I don't think it is clear how people can easily go about updating it centrally. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Delusion23: Perhaps on articles where we see it removed repeatedly, a comment along the lines of <!- Do not remove the updater. Update it at Template:English football updater--> should be added? Number 57 19:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll follow that next time I see it! Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

ECP on high-risk templates

Please see this RfC outcome in relation to your lowered protection level on Template:English football updater. The community rejected that protection level for use on high-risk templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Tufnel Park/Haringey Borough

Hello. The article states it these were the same club, but with different names. Please can you explain why you think they are separate, and merit separate player categories? Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Which article states this? Haringey Borough is the result of a merger of two clubs (Edmonton & Haringey Borough), one of which (Edmonton) was also a merger of two clubs, one of which was Tufnell Park. I will shortly be creating a separate article on them. Cheers, Number 57 19:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Haringey Borough F.C. - "In 1995 they were renamed Tufnell Park, one of the former names of Edmonton, but reverted to the Haringey Borough name the following year.[4]" GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And Wood Green Town F.C. claims to have spun out of the old TP reserve team? GiantSnowman 19:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Yes, it's a mess of Dagenham & Redbridge proportions... Number 57 19:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it on your capable hands to sort out - let me know if you need any help... GiantSnowman 19:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Cheers, will do! Number 57 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

good morning Number 57,

This seems like a very radical position consider no other party leader except the arab parties have advocated this. (which contains some very radical parties like Balad. I saw editing it as "left to far-left" as a compromise, I know Israeli National News has a bias, but so does Haaretz so in an effort to come to a conclusion that pleases both sides, this seems like a fair conclusion since INN doesn't refer to Zionist Union as far-left.

Also, sorry if this is not proper wiki etiquette, I am still pretty new to Wikipedia. ShimonChai (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: Thanks for letting me know about this. As this issue has actually been discussed before on the talk page previously in order to decide what place on the political spectrum Meretz are listed as being, I think there needs to be another discussion before you make such a bold change, so I've reverted in the meantime, which I hope you don't mind. Feel free to invite comment from WP:Israel if we don't get many comments though. Cheers, Number 57 19:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs

Hi 57, Having read Wikipedia's own guidelines ie "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." I will be re-instating all our runners-up and finalists positions, as we haven't got a large number of major trophies. Perhaps you would be so kind and replace all those other clubs' records for second placings which you have deleted which is contrary to Wikipedia's own guidelines. Mike Markham (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidently, despite my spat with you over what best describes the appropriate content for a given football club, I actually admire your determination to improve the layout of the various football articles and your attempt to standardise them. My only gripe has been with the excessive use of the knife, which removes a lot of the history and can make the article more spartan than it needs to be.

I really don't want to attempt to try to keep scoring points with you and perhaps put you off actually continuing the excellent work you have done so far, which helps to make Wikipedia a more coherent encyclopedia, but I would ask you to be more gentle and perhaps a little less punitive with your editing and pruning. Mike Markham (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Markham: I appreciate you have not been involved with the Football WikiProject, so I should say that the club MOS does not tell the full story of the "runners-up as an honour" debate; it's been discussed several times at WT:FOOTY and there has never been a consensus either way on whether they should be included or not (see, for example, this discussion where you'll see that I'm not the only one who removes them). The MOS was changed to suggest inclusion without a discussion a few years ago, but because it stuck for a couple of years and the discussions always end in no consensus, it's not possible to remove it. As such, it's largely been down to individual editors to decide for themselves, with discussions taking place when there is a dispute. Seeing as I've cleaned up almost 320 articles to date and this is the only time there's ever been any unpleasantness about me removing them, I take that as a sign that I'm doing it right. Number 57 19:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's call it a day and seeing as there is no consensus, please leave the Highworth Town honours board as it is. Thank you. Mike Markham (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Markham: I will leave them in, but please don't start another edit war over the collective noun issue. British English commonly treats collective nouns as plurals (see here); we usually have to explain this to American editors but I'm surprised to see it being done by a British one (as you appreciate references to how it's done in other articles, note the repeated use of "they" in Arsenal F.C., a featured article). As I mentioned in the edit summary, we should definitely not be referring to the club as "Highworth Town FC" in the article; "Highworth Town" is fine, but not with "FC" (as it doesn't match the "F.C." used in the article title, and is also pretty redundant). Number 57 20:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge as a teacher of English. I am a scientist by training which probably says a lot! Mike Markham (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pakistani general election, 2018

This is concerning [13]; the opinion poll was not by Gallup, but by Gallup Pakistan which is not a reputable organisation and in no way connected with Gallup. --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: It's part of Gallup International and has been since 1982 according to Gallup International's own website (see p132). I see no reason to believe this is not a reputable polling company. Number 57 17:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah then I'm mistaken. I thought it is some website using Gallup trademark. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi

There are local elections (municipal) in Jordan on 15 August, are you interested in developig an article about that? Theres a new law to these elections, decentralization law. Previously only municipalities were elcted in Jordan now theres something that is called a governorate-council which will be elected too. Do we need two articles for this: Jordanian local election/Jordanian municipal election, 2017 + Jordanian decentralization elections, 2017/ Jordanian governorate-council election, 2017 or just simply one article: Jordanian local election, 2017? I have heard that these governorate councils are similar (inspired) to those in the UK and possibly France too.. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I'd put it all into one article for ease of access. Happy to contribute if there is material in English. Number 57 15:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

protection for 2016–17 A-League

hi mate,

could I ask you to semi-protect 2016–17 A-League again? since the previous protection ended, it has already been vandalised 16 times by IP's (always with changing soccer to football in opposition to WP:NCFA), despite reverting and explanation. Thanks --SuperJew (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Done, indefinitely this time. Number 57 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert - parent/subcat for Israeli settlements

Hi, I see that you've reverted one of the edits I've made to include a settlement page in the Category:Israeli settlements list. I'm a little confused as I don't see any consensus to not include the settlements in both that cat as well as a subcat, having read through the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 1#Category:Israeli settlements and ensuing RFCs that resulted in "no consensus" on the issue (unless I'm misreading, there's a lot said there). As far as I can see that's the last time it was discussed. I for one think it makes sense for there to be a category that gathers all settlements, regardless of religious or secular affiliation. There is no complete list at present on Wiki. TrickyH (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@TrickyH: That discussion was about something entirely different – settlements used to be in categories that ended "in Israel" and that discussion was about getting them out of the "in Israel" categories – it was not about whether settlements should be in both the top level and the sub category.

As I said, I think you'll need to start a new discussion at WP:Israel to get consensus for your idea, seeing as the current categorisation has been the established way of doing it for some years now. Cheers, Number 57 14:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not really a contributor to WP:Israel, but I suppose I could bring it up. TrickyH (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:United States House of Representatives elections#Specials

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:United States House of Representatives elections#Specials. —GoldRingChip 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

New South Australian electorates

Good morning.

I noticed that you recently downgraded the quality rating (from Start to Stub) of several articles about electoral districts that were created in the 2016 redistribution and will be contested for the first time at the election to be held next March (example: Electoral district of Badcoe). The link to Quality Scale in the assessment box says under editing suggestions "Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant."

I believe that the first sentence asserts its significance, and the article had three references (for its location, electors, and creation). I wonder what further information you believe would be required at this stage to elevate the article to Start class? As I write this, I have added a paragraph about the notional swing and outgoing member for the electorate that Badcoe replaced. Is this what you required for the others too?

I am happy to work to improve the articles, but I find the generic Quality Scale guidelines quite frustrating as guides for improvement. I'm not even sure they are great as guides for assessment in many cases. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: I would generally regard any article that has less than one screen of text as being a stub, the classification of which is "a very short article". Cheers, Number 57 21:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you fo ryour reply. So the only assessment criterium you used was overall length, and to increase the assessment of those articles, the only thing to do is "just add length"? The short description of "Stub-class" is A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. As noted above, the Project's advice to step it up to start-class is to add referenced reasons why it is significant. The longer definition is The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article all together. I am looking for guidance from a Wikiproject Elections and Referendums assessor on what further content or style is required to improve these articles, and find "make it longer" unsatisfying, and inconsistent with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Assessing articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Gwent elections" template

This template is a confusing mess and cannot exist in its present form. See Template talk:Gwent elections#Confused_template 149.5.89.50 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It can exist in its present form, and will continue to do so. Number 57 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Josh Emmanuel

Hi, just wondering why you changed the reference type in your recent edit(s) to Josh Emmanuel? Curiously, Gricehead (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gricehead: The IP had left it with some errors in it (there was an edit conflict with you also fixing it), so I was just changing it to something simpler (I cannot stand {{cite}} and its variants so prefer to remove it when fixing references). Number 57 13:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Argentine general election, 2015

I'm putting the correct results and formating to show the Total valid votes, Blank votes and Invalid votes.

Stop reverting the article, you are not the owner.

--Yilku1 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And what is your problem with my edition? I put more information and put the background color to highlight Total valid votes and Total voters.

--Yilku1 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you are not going to answer it seems you don't have a problem with editions

--Yilku1 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: Sorry, I missed your previous message. The problems are (1) It's not the standard format (2) In the "Total valid votes" line you put (e.g.) 96.68% when the total of the above cells was actually 100% (3) There's no need to break down blank and invalid votes (4) Incorrect capitalisation of "Turnout" (5) Incorrect alignment of numbers (6) Needless small font for the source. Hope that's enough detail. Cheers, Number 57

"In the "Total valid votes" line you put (e.g.) 96.68% when the total of the above cells was actually 100%."

In my first table I put it was "Percentage of total valid votes", because is that way the votes are counted. In the current table the Invalid/blank votes appears with 0%, and that's incorrect because Invalid/blank votes and Total valid votes are a % of the Total votes. Total valid votes and Total votes are different things. The % used the deteriminate the winner is over the Total valid votes and not Total votes.

--Yilku1 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: The original version was still wrong because the sum of 51.34 + 48.66 is not 97.54, it's 100. Number 57 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

51.34 and 48.66 are Percentage of total valid votes (25,297,924). 97.54 (Total valid votes), 1.18 (Blank votes) and 1.28 (Invalid votes) are a % of the Total votes (25,935,243).

That's the way the votes are counted

--Yilku1 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: Yes, I know how it's calculated. The issue is that you were putting the wrong total in the total row. Number 57 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

But that is how the % is put in other articles. First you have all the parties and then its total, then Invalid/blank votes, and then the combined total of all votes.

--Yilku1 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: No it's not. We always have the total as 100%. See e.g. Uruguayan general election, 2014, Bolivian general election, 2014, Ecuadorian general election, 2017 etc. Number 57 07:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mixing Total valid votes and Total votes and they are not the same. What is the problem keeping them separte? In other articles they are separted: French presidential election, 2017, Finnish parliamentary election, 2015, Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013, Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016, Hungarian migrant quota referendum, 2016. --Yilku1 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not mixing anything. I'm not sure you actually looked at the Hungarian article properly as the results table is in the same format as the Argentine one. None of the election articles you linked to have the same format you proposed either. To save further time being wasted here, I'm not going to agree to your proposed format, so let's move on please. Number 57 19:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I still don't know what is the problem with separating Total valid votes and Total votes. What is the problem keeping them separted? It's a better way of showing the votes. --Yilku1 (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: In the referendum articles all have Total valid votes and Total votes separeted in the first table. If you look at French legislative election, 2012 and Iranian presidential election, 2017 it's the same. What are the rules that say that the tables must be that way? Who is going to die if I present the info in the correct way? --Yilku1 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not "the correct way". And as I pointed out, the French versions is not what you did. It adds up correctly. Thanks for pointing out the incorrectly summed Iranian one. I've fixed it now. Number 57 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: So, if I copy the French table it's OK? --Yilku1 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for a change, full stop. Why are you so obsessed with this? Number 57 21:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: If you think the French table is correct then I will copy that format. --Yilku1 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct; I think the current version of the Argentine table is correct. I was merely pointing out that the French version was not the same as what you were proposing. Number 57 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: The French format shows the correct % of blank and invalid votes, because now they are at 0%. --Yilku1 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: I already told you, this table shows incorrect percentages and numbers, Blank and Invalid votes aren't 0%. Showing Blank and Invalid with 0% is incorrect, they are % of the Total Voters. --Yilku1 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yilku1: It doesn't say that are 0%; it simply makes it clear they are not included in the total of For/Against. Please stop inserting your non-standard table into the article. Thanks, Number 57 07:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: It's showing incorrect values. My table shows the correct %. You can't put Blank and Invalid because they are not the same thing and they are % Total voters. If France can use the same table why Argentina can't?

Your table shows incorrect values, do you understand that? Why are you so obsessed with keeping an incorrect table?--Yilku1 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't show any incorrect values. Blank and invalid votes are both non-valid votes – haven't you noticed that they are also grouped together in the infobox? Why are you so obsessed with inserting a non-standard table into the article? Number 57 07:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: There are various types of votes:

• Positive votes (are valid votes): is the expression of the political will of the voter directed in favor of one or more candidates, are those that are cast with an official ballot.
• Blank vote (are valid votes because they represent a manifestation of the will of the voter to refrain from choosing among the various candidates): when the envelope is empty or contains a piece of paper of any color without any inscription.
• Invalid vote: is that which is cast with an unofficial ballot, or when cast with inappropriate inscriptions or images or have included foreign objects. It is also considered Invalid when ballots of different political groups have been included for the same category of positions.

For the primaries the % of votes is calculated over the Valid Votes (Positive+Blank). In the general election the % of votes is calculated over the Positive Votes only.

See, in all the official results they are always shown in this way: 1, 2, 3, 4

"non-standard table" according to who? Why France can use the same table and Argentina can't?

"Why are you so obsessed with inserting a non-standard table into the article" Because the standard table shows incorrects %, I already told you Positive, Blank and Invalid Votes are % of the Total Voters, and the options to vote are a % of Positive Votes. --Yilku1 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the final time: The table does not show incorrect percentages – it merely does not show a percentage for the invalid and blank votes. I will ignore any further attempts by you to claim it is incorrect because it is manifestly not.

You also keep referencing the French table but it is completely different to what you are trying to implement, so please also stop making false comparisons.

If you change the table again without gaining consensus for a non-standard table, I will be requesting that your account is blocked from editing for disruptive behaviour. Number 57 23:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: "The table does not show incorrect percentages – it merely does not show a percentage for the invalid and blank votes" - What is the problem showing the percentages then?

"I will ignore any further attempts by you to claim it is incorrect because it is manifestly not." - You don't get to say if they are correct or not. The votes are counted in that way, this is a FACT, you can't change it. If you want Wikipedia to be accurate you can't post tables with a formate that is not what is in use.

"You also keep referencing the French table but it is completely different to what you are trying to implement, so please also stop making false comparisons." - Why it's different? Because you say it? What policy says that?

You still didn't say any argument about why you are against.

The only way a have to make you respond is editing the table. I use Template:Reply to, can't gain consensus if you keep ignoring me. --Yilku1 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not ignoring you – I have responded pretty much every time you have left me a message here. My argument is that the existing table is fine, meets psephological norms of presenting referendum results, and no changes are needed to what is a standard was of showing referendum results on Wikipedia. Nothing you have said or will say will convince me that your table is an improvement or in any way appropriate for English Wikipedia. Number 57 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Why French elections can use that table but mine that is the SAME can't?

"You also keep referencing the French table but it is completely different to what you are trying to implement, so please also stop making false comparisons." - Why it's different?

"standard way of showing referendum results on Wikipedia." - What policy says that?

If you don't answer the questions I ask you are ignoring me. --Yilku1 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For the final time, your table is not the same as the French table; the French table is for a presidential election results and the layout is completely different. And even if your table was the same, I still don't think it would be suitable for this article, because it's not the standard format. The list of articles below should give you an idea of what that is – bear in mind this is just A–C and I can provide hundreds more from the rest of the alphabet if you're still not convinced. If you can provide a similar number of referendum articles using your proposed format, then I'll concede that it's acceptable. Number 57 20:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Abkhazian constitutional referendum, 1999
2. Abkhazian early presidential elections referendum, 2016
3. Abkhazian New Union Treaty referendum, 1991
4. Afars and Issas independence referendum, 1977
5. Ålandic European Union membership referendum, 1994
6. Ålandic status referendum, 1919
7. Albanian constitutional referendum, 1994
8. Albanian constitutional referendum, 1998
9. Albanian monarchy referendum, 1997
10. Alderney referendum, 2003
11. Algerian Civil Concord referendum, 1999
12. Algerian constitutional referendum, 1963
13. Algerian constitutional referendum, 1976
14. Algerian constitutional referendum, 1988
15. Algerian constitutional referendum, 1989
16. Algerian constitutional referendum, 1996
17. Algerian independence referendum, 1962
18. Algerian National Charter referendum, 1976
19. Algerian National Charter referendum, 1986
20. American Samoan constitutional referendum, 2014
21. American Samoan gubernatorial veto referendum, 1990
22. Andorran constitutional referendum, 1993
23. Andorran electoral system referendum, 1982
24. Andorran political reform referendum, 1977
25. Andorran political reform referendum, 1978
26. Anguillan constitutional referendum, 1969
27. Anguillan separation referendum, 1967
28. Anjouan independence referendum, 1997
29. Armenian constitutional referendum, 1995
30. Armenian constitutional referendum, 2005
31. Armenian constitutional referendum, 2015
32. Armenian independence referendum, 1991
33. Aruban independence referendum, 1977
34. Austrian Anschluss referendum, 1938
35. Azerbaijani constitutional referendum, 1995
36. Azerbaijani independence referendum, 1991
37. Azerbaijani vote of confidence referendum, 1993
38. Bahamian gambling referendum, 2013
39. Bangladeshi constitutional referendum, 1991
40. Bangladeshi military rule referendum, 1985
41. Bangladeshi presidential confidence referendum, 1977
42. Basque autonomy referendum, 1933
43. Batavian Republic constitutional referendum, 1805
44. Belarusian referendum, 1995
45. Belarusian referendum, 1996
46. Belarusian referendum, 2004
47. Belgian monarchy referendum, 1950
48. Beninese constitutional referendum, 1990
49. Bermudian death penalty referendum, 1990
50. Bermudian independence referendum, 1995
51. Bermudian same-sex union and marriage referendum, 2016
52. Bolivian constitutional referendum, 2016
53. Bolivian gas referendum, 2004
54. Bolivian referendum, 1986
55. Bolivian regional autonomy referendum, 2006
56. Bonaire constitutional referendum, 2010
57. Bonaire status referendum, 1994
58. Bonaire status referendum, 2004
59. Bonaire status referendum, 2015
60. Bosnian independence referendum, 1992
61. Bosnian Serb referendum, 1991
62. Botswana electoral reform referendum, 1987
63. Botswana electoral reform referendum, 1997
64. Botswana judicial reform referendum, 2001
65. Brazilian constitutional referendum, 1963
66. British Cameroons referendum, 1961
67. Bulgarian constitutional referendum, 1971
68. Bulgarian electoral code referendum, 2015
69. Bulgarian nuclear power referendum, 2013
70. Bulgarian republic referendum, 1946
71. Bulgarian war criminal prosecution referendum, 1922
72. Burkinabé constitutional referendum, 1991
73. Burmese constitutional referendum, 1973
74. Burundian Charter of National Unity referendum, 1991
75. Burundian constitutional referendum, 1981
76. Burundian constitutional referendum, 1992
77. Burundian constitutional referendum, 2005
78. Cambodian constitutional referendum, 1959
79. Cambodian constitutional referendum, 1972
80. Cambodian electoral law referendum, 1958
81. Cambodian Geneva Conference referendum, 1955
82. Cambodian policy referendum, 1960
83. Cambodian referendum, 1945
84. Cameroonian constitutional referendum, 1958
85. Cameroonian constitutional referendum, 1960
86. Cameroonian constitutional referendum, 1972
87. Catalan autonomy referendum, 1931
88. Caymanian constitutional referendum, 2009
89. Caymanian electoral system referendum, 2012
90. Central African constitutional referendum, 1981
91. Central African constitutional referendum, 1986
92. Central African constitutional referendum, 1994
93. Central African constitutional referendum, 2004
94. Central African constitutional referendum, 2015
95. Chadian constitutional referendum, 1958
96. Chadian constitutional referendum, 1989
97. Chadian constitutional referendum, 1996
98. Chadian constitutional referendum, 2005
99. Chilean constitutional referendum, 1925
100. Chilean constitutional referendum, 1989
101. Ciskei independence referendum, 1980
102. Cocos (Keeling) Islands status referendum, 1984
103. Colombian constitutional reform referendum, 1957
104. Colombian referendum, 1997
105. Comorian constitutional referendum, 1958
106. Comorian constitutional referendum, 1978
107. Comorian constitutional referendum, 1989
108. Comorian constitutional referendum, 1992
109. Comorian constitutional referendum, 1996
110. Comorian constitutional referendum, 2001
111. Comorian constitutional referendum, 2009
112. Comorian presidential referendum, 1977
113. Cook Islands parliamentary term referendum, 1999
114. Cook Islands parliamentary term referendum, 2004
115. Cook Islands referendum, 1994
116. Costa Rican Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement referendum, 2007
117. Crimean referendum, 1994
118. Crimean sovereignty referendum, 1991
119. Cuban constitutional referendum, 1976
120. Curaçao status referendum, 1993
121. Curaçao status referendum, 2009
122. Cypriot enosis referendum, 1950
123. Czech European Union membership referendum, 2003

New section

@Number 57: "the French table is for a presidential election results" – And? I still don't see any problem for use it.

"because it's not the standard format." – In Argentina IS the standar format: 1, 2, 3, 4.

I still haven't found a rule that says what table to use but I did found this rule. Using the table format officially used is an improvement over the simple table now used, because it show how the votes are counted. --Yilku1 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Argentina. I have given you over 100 examples of what is the standard referendum results layout above. Do I really need to list another 100? Or perhaps 200? At what point are you going to WP:DROPTHESTICK? Number 57 21:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: "This is Wikipedia, not Argentina." - Then we should delete everything about Argentina in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the it should show the results in the way they are counted. --Yilku1 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Settlements vs Kibbutz, etc

In some cases the text, or source, says settlement. I do not think it is unproblematic that you change it into something different. Please stop, until we have policy on this, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when I see change like this, ok, what if you changed that to Israeli moshav Givat Nili? It is not exactly what the source says, but we can live with that. Khalidis point is that the new settlements were Israeli. Ok, us regulars here know that a moshav or kibbutz are Israeli, but that does not guarantee that anyone reading this will know that. Is this an acceptable compromise? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Hiding behind the "what the sources say" argument here is indefensible. You know and I know that Israeli settlement has a clear and unambiguous meaning – an Israeli village/town/city in the occupied territories – please let's not play games here as I have zero patience for this sort of nonsense at the best of times. And we already have a policy on this – it's called WP:NPOV and this is one of the most egregious violations of it that I have come across in this topic area in recent times.

If you want a compromise, rather than use the phrase "Israeli" in front of village/moshav/kibbutz, it would be better to go further and clarify that the village land was incorporated into the state of Israel as this is not made clear to the readers in many of the articles that I edited tonight. Sentences could start with something like "Following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the area was incorporated into the State of Israel and the moshav Gili was built on the village's lands". Number 57 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to become personal, you should know that I am regularly attacked if I deviate 1 cm from what whatever the source say. And whatever has a clear and unambiguous meaning to us, like moshav, or kibbutz, or settlement, does not necessarily have the same for any given reader.

Im fine with the above (except there should be no need to wikilink 1948 Arab–Israeli War, as that is linked before). Say, "Following the 1948 war, the area was incorporated into the State of Israel and the moshav Givat Nili was established in 1953 on the village's lands, south of the village site." Huldra (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: OK I will add that into the ones I have already edited and use it in the remaining replacements. Number 57 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PUMP Audio / Drive Protect / Adam Blair

Hi, you've tagged the above mentioned articles as suspected paid-for articles. I created them as a user, not for payment, and tried to keep everything neutral. Do you have a link to the site where creation was requested? Rather than flagging for deletion it would be better to suggest how to improve the articles or make any edits you feel fit to make yourself. So, what do you suggest to make the articles not look promotional/paid-for? Mcopestake (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mcopestake: It's quite obvious that these are articles created for the purpose of promoting the subjects and that you have a WP:COI with Pump Audio and potentially the other two articles. I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with our WP:Conflict of interest policies and cease editing these articles. Thanks, Number 57 15:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: There has been no payment for any of these articles, the intention was just to collate information on the companies and founder as I found nothing when researching them myself in the past. If there are any issues with the articles please go ahead and alter the contents as you see fit. Thanks Mcopestake (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Sorry for the double post, but I didn't get a reply and I don't want articles I spent a good few hours working on being deleted unnecessarily. So my questions are 1) What can be done to make them sound less promotional? Good and bad has been included in all, 2) Can we request others to work on the articles too? That would ensure neutrality and get a second opinion. 3) What else do I need to do to stop them being deleted? Thanks. Mcopestake (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mcopestake: I don't believe the subjects are actually notable, so no amount of improvement will help. Number 57 16:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: And you're entitled to that opinion. However from my research I see that Blair was a professional driver and took part in many races(several of which are included as sources), and he now has various companies with seemingly thousands of customers each and received reviews from some pretty big named artists saying that they feel the products are better than other huge companies, it could just be a matter of time until it's a household brand. There was a discussion on notability when the Blair article was first created, and after reading through the guidelines I believe he is notable enough. So again, what can be done to satisfy your views of notability? And how do we get others involved to make sure everything is definitely neutral? Mcopestake (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

From your research? You work with him and have a clear WP:COI so please stay away from these subjects on Wikipedia. Thank you. Number 57 16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Election article

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edits. The reason I added the KSP was because the infobox used the term "Party" not "alliance". The United Front was a coalition, not a party. And the United Front did not last long, according to sources I have seen (in 1955, it was on the opposite side of the Awami League). All the chief ministers were from the KSP, hence it was a provincial ruling party.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: The issue is that it was the United Front won the election, so they need to be listed as the winning "party", not the KSP. Although the infobox states "Party", alliances are still listed in situations like this (see e.g. Spanish general election, 2015 where two electoral coalitions are in the infobox, or Israeli legislative election, 2015 where there are three). Cheers, Number 57 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Indirect election

Hi It haven't made sense to remove them because it is an official and constitutional election, like for Brazil, Haiti and Italy. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: There are no indirect elections on {{Italian elections}} as far as I am aware. I think you are confusing it with {{Italian presidential elections}}, a template that was created especially for indirect elections (like {{Israeli presidential elections}} or {{Indian presidential elections}}. We generally do not include indirect elections on these templates – thanks for alerting me to the other violations of this though; I will remove them too. Cheers, Number 57 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I will stop my reverts for NKR but stop your edit warring for Brazil and Haiti. If you remove the election again, I will be reporting you for edit warring. Please respect WP:BRD – stop and get consensus for your edits. Thanks. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We should stop all edit and create a RfC. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: There's no need to be a WP:JERK; one edit does not count as edit warring – trying to equate my edits with your behaviour at the Nagorno-Karabakh template is pathetic. More than happy to have a WP:RfC at WP:E&R though. Number 57 13:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You ask for a consensus for Nagorno Karabakh and you pass in force on Brazil and on Haiti to create a precedent. Nobody is above the rules. Yeah I will launch a discussion. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: The consensus already exists so there is no problem enforcing it on templates where it has been overlooked. Edits contrary to said consensus are the problem. I wish you could be more cooperative in working with other editors instead of getting everyone's backs up all the time. Number 57 13:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior is not collaborative as you take liberties with the rules and saying " my previous experience your behaviour, not entirely surprising" without argument is an attempt to discredit me. All this has failed. For the rest, I want to see the slightest trace of this consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I am not taking any liberties and I don't know how to respond to the second part of your first sentence because it makes no sense. Anyway, here's some immediate evidence of another editor being aware of said consensus. It would be nice if you could revert yourself on the Brazilian template before someone else does it. Cheers, Number 57 13:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not an argument. In your case, you have reverted be while Aréat was on my side. Similar situation, please read WP:NCON. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Like yourself, Aréat is probably not aware of this consensus. I'm not sure how this makes it "not an argument". In any case, they did not behave like you are doing when their edit was reverted. I'm not sure why the policy on article naming conventions is relevant here. Number 57 13:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There was never any discussion that made it possible to formalize what you claim to be a consensus. No, it's not true, they were behaving the same, (revert, etc) and me like the other. And in any case there was consensus to change. As for the rest, you accuse me to edit warring when I have not made three revert and you are surprised to be accused the same way when you also made two reverts. You are involved in the conflict so you can not act as an administrator but as a stakeholder. The double standards is blatant. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: It is true; they didn't try to repeatedly revert the election link back in. I am also concerned that you do not understand the meaning of consensus, nor that the definition of edit warring is not restricted to being over three reverts. Let's stick to discussing the matter of this particular consensus at the template talk page rather than hold two parallel conversations. Number 57 13:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If the sense of edit warring is not limited to a revert number, in this case you and the other contributor you also participated in an editing war, as well me and Aréat. For the rest, everything is clear, you did not show that a consensus was reached during a discussion. And in the name of compliance with the rules the revert of the other contributor on Haiti must be reverted or it is handed back if we consider that two contributors who support the change is a sufficient number. Or in this case we do the same for the NKR under the pretext that in view of the number, it is enough also. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I am not going to comment on the consensus – that should be done on the template talk page. However, it should be point out that Aréat was not involved in any edit warring in any sense of the word and you should not be accusing them of such. Number 57 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not for Aréat as he let himself be done or he did not come back here but it was you and Sfs90, you took part to the edit warring against me. Whether you like it or not. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman Syria is part of Ottoman Empire.

Ottoman Syria made up the Ottoman Empire. Like Soviet Belarus, Soviet Ukraine, Soviet Kazakhstan made up the Soviet Union. I wasn't saying Ottoman Syria was it's own country.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In the infobox we have "City, Country" not "City, Province". In anyone born in the Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire or Soviet Union, that's what you'll see in their infobox. See e.g. Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, Avigdor Lieberman or Yitzhak Kanev. Number 57 18:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. Take someone born in Kazakhstan during the soviet union. It would be "Karaganda, Kazakh SSR,Soviet Union" Not "Karaganda,Soviet Union" So "Jerusalem, Ottoman Syria, Ottoman Empire" Would be correct.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is true. Have a look at the three examples I've given you. Number 57 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, What about Vladimir Putin, Gennady Golovkin, Giorgi Margvelashvili and others?--75.66.124.118 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, they're not MKs. Secondly, you were adding Ottoman Syria in place of Ottoman Empire, not in addition to it. Having "Jerusalem, Ottoman Syria, Ottoman Empire" would just look silly. Number 57 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Zehut party

Hello, I was wondering if you knew what needed to be changed in regard to the article on the Zehut party, in order to fix the NPOV problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimonChai (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: I don't think it's too problematic so I wouldn't object to the tag being removed. Number 57 21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

adding social media in EL

Hi I noticed that you added a Twitter account in the external links section of Marston Shelton Rovers F.C.. As per #10 of WP:ELNO social media such as twitter feeds are links that are considered inappropriate. Cheers; Domdeparis (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: If the organisation has no website and their Twitter account is their only online presence, then it is appropriate because it meets WP:ELOFFICIAL. I'll be restoring the links. Cheers, Number 57 09:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)−

Hi could you point me to the policy or guideline that backs this up please as I was convinced that social media should be avoided. Domdeparis (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I already did – WP:ELOFFICIAL. Paraphrasing it, the EL has to be a link to a website or other internet service that is controlled by the subject and whose content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable; such links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided. The clubs' twitter feeds meet these requirements and therefore are exempted from the ELNO guideline you quoted above (they would not if the club had an official website as EL:OFFICIAL states that only one link should be provided, but the clubs in question do not have websites, hence why I didn't undo your edit on AFC Dunstable as they do have one). Hope that all makes sense. Cheers, Number 57 10:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to write that I get your point but you beat me to it! cheers Domdeparis (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That said I had a look at the twitter account for Marston and there is nothing that says that it is the official account for the club. How can we be certain that what is written is endorsed by the club and meets ELOFFICIAL? Domdeparis (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: On several occasions it uses "we" to describe the club, which it wouldn't if it weren't being run by club itself. Also requesting opponents for friendly matches and attending the league's AGM are things that would not be done outside of the club. Number 57 10:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I totally agree. This is the sort of language that would be used by a member of the club or a fan that has taken it upon himself to create a Twitter feed in good faith to represent the club because the club doesn't have one yet but that doesn't make it official. That said seeing the tweets calling for opponents I think that you are certainly right but we are not 100% sure that the information is controlled by the club as per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Domdeparis (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: The same (not knowing for certain that it's controlled by the organisation) could be said for any "official" website, but I think it's fairly obvious this account is (e.g. tweeting pics of documents from the AGM). If you still want to remove the Twitter link then I would suggest a discussion at WP:FOOTY for the views of a wider audience as I think it would be detrimental to do so. Cheers, Number 57 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New section

Continuation

@Number 57: "the French table is for a presidential election results" – And? I still don't see any problem for use it.

"because it's not the standard format." – In Argentina IS the standar format: 1, 2, 3, 4.

I still haven't found a rule that says what table to use but I did found this rule. Using the table format officially used is an improvement over the simple table now used, because it show how the votes are counted. --Yilku1 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Argentina. I have given you over 100 examples of what is the standard referendum results layout above. Do I really need to list another 100? Or perhaps 200? At what point are you going to WP:DROPTHESTICK? Number 57 21:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: "This is Wikipedia, not Argentina." - Then we should delete everything about Argentina in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it should show the results in the way they are counted. --Yilku1 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And you say you don't ignore me... --Yilku1 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should I respond to straw man arguments? The results are presented according to Wikipedia/encyclopedic norms and I've literally given you over a hundred examples of this. Happy to give over a hundred more if it will make you understand though. Number 57 11:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Take a look

Just wanted to see if you could take a look at the new 2017 Constitutional Assembly of Venezuela article.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Squad templates

Hi. So about the squad templates...

Pro's of the standard format...
- More compact
- More clubs have it (which isn't a pro at all, really - just inertia)

Pro's of the new format...
- Sortable by #, Name, Nationality, Position
- Displays more info (full country name)
- Actually works on mobile (current format doesn't)

Be good to know your thoughts in more detail. I know some teams in certain leagues all have the new format. I think it's time European clubs did too. They're undoubtedly better and the only hurdle seems to be some people don't want to "different".

There's probably a larger discussion to be had.

Thanks. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@UncleTupelo1: The usual format can be seen on a single screen; the new format cannot if the squad is quite big. The new format contains too much text (writing out positions in full and the country names), making it is less easy to read. Your last point about the pros of the new format isn't true as the usual format works fine on a mobile.

It's not about not wanting to be different, it's about not needing to change something that works well to something that doesn't work as well. Number 57 09:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Does the current template fit on a mobile screen completely for you? I've found it doesn't and the country/flag icons don't load, so it's difficult to read. Honestly, I know the arguments went on for a long time when deciding to use this format across all the US/Canadian league teams in MLS, NASL and USL and the new format won out. I'll see if I can find the thread as the arguments were certainly more convincing than mine. UncleTupelo1 (talk 09:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@UncleTupelo1: Yes, it looks exactly the same as it does on a web browser. Don't worry about finding the arguments – I saw them at the time and there's not going to be anything that will convince me that the new format is better. Cheers, Number 57 09:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

rectifying a mistake

Hi mate, I made a mistake on this diff, when I pasted in the edit summary and saved before realising instead of pasting my previos edit summary (update national caps), I posted a phone number of a class-mate. Would you able to remove it from the edit summary as it is personal info? Thanks and sorry about the mess. --SuperJew (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Done. Number 57 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

AFD

FYI, pings only work if you do them in the same edit as your signature - thanks for the PROD though, I've commented. GiantSnowman 07:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Well, that's something new I've learnt today. I guess the same issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Briscoe too. Cheers, Number 57 08:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It worked that time! ;) GiantSnowman 17:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Arab local council in the Triangle area of Haifa District in Israel

you connected jatt to the wrong place, 144.41.3.21 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Cheers, Number 57 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 57. I have a pdf of the report - how can I send it to you?

I am convinced that I am right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iofra72 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the fixing. 144.41.3.22 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Counties League relegation spots

Hullo Number 57. I have stumbled across sources such as Ely Standard and Suffolk Free Press that have reported something interesting about the Eastern Counties League this season. Apparently, seven teams could be relegated from the Premier Division for financial and travelling reasons, as part of the shakeup the FA is planning next season. That said, this decision is said to remain unconfirmed until May 5, so I was wondering what to do with the template; do I simply extend the relegation spots to the bottom seven clubs despite this remaining unconfirmed? Or do I simply add a footnote detailing what may happen? Good888 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Good888: Good question. From what I can work out, it could be even more if the top two clubs are not promotable and clubs come down from the Isthmian North Division. But assuming there is no net gain/loss there, if the division has to be reduced to 20 clubs for next season and three are still coming up from Division One, then it could well be seven. Perhaps highlight all seven with a note?

I hope they use this opportunity to kick the reserves out of Division One, otherwise we could finally being saying goodbye to Cornard (although I wouldn't shed a tear if it were Team Bury). Number 57 08:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Good888: You may like to have a look at the equivalent NWC templates, and do something similar. The league has said that it could be anything between four and six going down from the Premier Division, and between two and seven from Division One. Drawoh46 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Right, based on some calculations, at least five teams should be relegated from Premier, and three from Division One. Let me know if these calculations are incorrect. Anyhow, thanks to both of you for the solutions given. Good888 (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Good888: In theory as few as two teams may be relegated (if two clubs are promoted to the Isthmian League and not replaced) and none of the top three in Division One are promotable. Five is probably the best number to go for for now though. Number 57 09:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Good888: I don't necessarily agree with the calculations that NWC made in their statement, so I'm probably not the best person to check yours. However, I've used NWC's figures to show the sizes of the dark and light red bands in the table templates, as I can give a citation for these.

Regarding the NWC Premier Division, the variables are that one or two could be promoted to Step 4 and between zero and two could be relegated from Step 4 (NWC statement ignored the possibility of zero coming down). The fixed is that three will be promoted from Step 6. The requirement is that the division reduces in size by three. Movement between the division and Step 4 could see anything between a reduction of two clubs and an increase of one. Bringing in the three promoted from Step 6 means an increase of between one and four clubs. The division needs to reduce by three, so between four and seven clubs would need to be relegated to Division One. (Not between four and six, as NWC statement says).

Regarding NWC Division One, the NWC statement is saying that between five and seven clubs might need to be relegated. However, with the split into two 16 team divisions, the existing 22 teams have got to have a net increase of 10. Three will be promoted to Step 5, at most seven will come down from Step 5, and two could achieve promotion from Step 7. Even if no clubs were relegated from Step 6 there would still be a shortfall, so I'm not sure how a minimum of five must be relegated. I believe that the minimum should be one, as I believe it is an FA requirement that at least one club MUST be relegated from any division with a full complement of teams.

I believe that there is likely to be a further Step 6 division in the East Anglia area too, so relegation from Eastern Counties Division One may also not be as severe as some might think. Sorry I haven't managed to do as you ask, and check your calculations; I hope you'll understand why! Drawoh46 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drawoh46:No problem, and thanks for the detailed explaination. I have to admit, whilst I do get why the FA want to assist clubs with their financial and travelling burdens, the knock-on effect does seem to be quite extreme. Still, I am keeping with the calculations made for now, until a reliable source says otherwise. Good888 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Good888: I would certainly go along with what you've put. Eastern Counties and NWC templates certainly appear compatible. And probably better to show an over-pessimistic than over-optimistic relegation forecast until we have more detailed information. Drawoh46 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Number 57. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— MusikAnimal ^talk 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines for citing one's own material

We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. Please assume good faith on my part (your comment about intentionally leaving off words from a quote was really unnecessary; you also did not reply to my question, but I do not assume this was strategic or malicious) and, if you could be so charitable, the other editor in question, who may well be genuinely just trying to help in an area where she has expertise.

Also consider that there are several guidelines that are relevant here, not just one. You have been focusing exclusively on WP:CITESPAM, but there is also WP:SELFCITE, which says: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." These edits really seem to conform to every aspect of this: they are relevant, conform to content policies (including SELFPUB), and are not excessive. The citations are in the third person and really do not attempt to plug the author or book: the editor never mentions herself or her book in the body of the article. (People trying to promote their own work usually work their name and/or publications into the article; how many readers look at the footnotes, anyway?) Clean Copy^talk 12:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: You seem to be missing the main problem here. She is ONLY editing Wikipedia to add links/citations to her own book. This is very different to a productive editor using their own works as a source - I know a couple of such editors and have zero problems with them. Number 57 13:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a reason by itself to delete edits. I would first interpose the question "do the edits improve the article?". Zero^talk 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. For some of us, the "main point" is to improve the quality of the articles on Wikipedia. Clean Copy^talk 19:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Senate elections

I'd like to continue putting the special Senate election articles in the template, {{United States Senate elections}}. I know they're specials and not the regular 2-year cycles, but there are enough, in some years, to merit an article.—GoldRingChip 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Perhaps in a separate row like By-elections in {{Singaporean elections}}? Number 57 23:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm… interesting solution! I'll put them there, and when I'm done with them all (could be a while), we'll see how it looks.—GoldRingChip 23:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please hold off on moving these pages I'm working on? We'll settle it when I'm done. Thanks.14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Not if it's only a single election in those years, as the title is completely misleading otherwise. If you find more special elections in those years, then by all means move it, but if it's a single election, it can't be at the "United States Senate election, XXXX" title. Number 57 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your point, but this is under construction. I'm trying to figure out a good system here.—GoldRingChip 14:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldRingChip: We have a system already, hence why I'm doing this. Number 57 14:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Expanding on this: Articles on single by-elections always contain the name of the seat being elected; titles like United States Senate election, 1921 are only used for full elections and using them for a single special election is misleading (I also did not understand why there were two separate articles for the 1931 special election, so have merged them). Even when an article covers multiple special elections in the same year, we don't use the full year title, but instead something like Singaporean by-elections, 1961 or South Korean by-elections, 2014, not "Singapore general election, 1961" or "South Korean parliamentary election, 1961". Apologies if I pissed you off here as you're obviously doing some excellent work, but there needs to be some level of conformity in election article titling. Cheers, Number 57 15:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • You didn't piss me off at all. I don't take ownership in the articles. It's just that you interrupted when I was in the middle of working out a solution to a problem. I should have posted a hatnote, {{increation}}, or something like that. Clearly, however, my solution isn't working as it confused you. I shall revert… carefully.—GoldRingChip 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @GoldRingChip: I don't understand why you have merged the special elections back into the articles on regular elections. What's wrong with doing it the way it's done for other countries? Number 57 21:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't know how they do it for other countries.—GoldRingChip 23:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
            • @GoldRingChip: I just explained above. One article for the main elections and separate, differently titled articles for by-elections. Number 57 07:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
              • There are problems keeping this consistent, though. Sometimes the special election is held on the same day as a general. Sometimes the generals are held on different days than others.—GoldRingChip 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
                • @GoldRingChip: I don't see how that causes problems. If general are held over several days, then it doesn't affect the title, unless it spans over a year, in which case it would just be a title like Central African general election, 2015–16 or Croatian presidential election, 2014–15. So, regular Senate elections in a single year would be United States Senate election, XXXX; ones over two years would be United States Senate election, XXXX–XX and specials would be United States Senate special elections, XXXX for articles on multiple elections or United States Senate special election in State, XXXX in cases where there was only one that year. Number 57 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't a problem. I'm not sure. Before the 17th Amendment, elections were held any number of days spanning two years. But, unlike a presidential election or a Central African general election, these are separate — seemingly unrelated — events. They are tied together here in a single article because of their collective impact. Some of them are general, some are special. In many cases, in fact, the same seat can have a special and a general in the same year, sometimes even at the same time. My point is this: There's no reason to break out a collective article about multiple special elections. I've written articles covering two years: an even year and the following odd year. Each article has three parts: 1) Specials before the next Congress (during the even year and up until the Congress begins in the odd year); 2) Generals leading to the next Congress (usually during the even year, but in the 19th century many were in the odd year); and 3) Specials during the next Congress (always in the odd year). E.g., United States Senate elections, 1890 and 1891. I've converted all the articles from 1788 and have reached 1966; it's a long detailed process but it's coming together.—GoldRingChip 15:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

About Jerusalem

I understand you are in the WikiProject Israel so you may tend to lean forward on putting Israel as the owner of Jerusalem but, as stated in the Wikipedia article:

"Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as the State of Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there while the State of Palestine ultimately foresees the city as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally." - Second paragraph of Jerusalem: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jerusalem

For the sake of not taking sides, I do ask you to not reference a country as the ownership of Jerusalem. I do feel this is how it makes any side happy. ThisIsAgain32 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, as you've been told several times, you are not allowed to edit articles in this topic area. Secondly, town twinning is done with municipal authorities. Jerusalem City Council is an Israeli municipality, hence why it's an Israeli twinning. Fes is twinned with the Palestinian part of Jerusalem, hence why it is listed on that article as such rather than being an Israeli twinning. With regards to "taking sides" my personal beliefs on Jerusalem are that it should be split in two so that both the Israelis and Palestinians can have it as their capital. However, I do not allow my personal beliefs to influence my editing, preferring to rely on facts as outlined above. Number 57 11:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Leamington FC

I've just noticed that you butchered a perfectly good article by removing a lot of it which has been there for many years. Hope you're proud Cls14 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cls14: Actually I was pretty pleased with the job I did, particularly improving the history section from this to this. The article was pretty woeful before – hardly any references, almost zero detail on the history before 2000. The supporters section you reinstated encapsulated many of the previous issues – largely unreferenced and very recentist. I have no idea why a table of the top five largest attendances is considered encyclopedic. I've cut it down to the referenced bit and put the Leamington TV link in the External links section. Cheers, Number 57 21:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You have no idea why the top 5 attendances should be on here? Because it's interesting. I'm not going to argue with you as you insist on removing interesting things from articles. You are a lot of what is wrong with Wikipedia and you make me want to just give up on editing. You claim "The main reason I edit Wikipedia is a strong belief that every person on the planet has the right to access the accumulated knowledge of humanity." but you deleted stuff at will as and when you feel like it. Well done again Cls14 (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Namibian general election, 2014

Hi! I'm somewhat curious why the table you restored would be better than the template call I put in? Election results are used in several articles; with manual tables they have to be updated at several places. --Pgallert (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The template version is far too wide, the source is not displayed in the usual format and the heading is unnecessary when on the actual election article itself. Given that the election was three years ago, it's not likely to be updated either.

In general, templates should only be created when displayed in multiple places. Election results template are generally only displayed elsewhere when they are from most recent election, so after the following election, they would only be displayed on one page. As a result I think it makes more sense to keep a hard coded version on election articles, because the template would be likely to end up being deleted due to there only being one transclusion. Number 57 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, on a page like Elections in Namibia the headline makes perfect sense. Your edit didn't improve the source format, rather the contrary, and it reintroduced a common mistake (0 invalid votes, not supported by the source). Calling templates for election results seems not to be too uncommon, either. The template will have two article transclusions until at least November 2019, and maybe the article base on Namibia has been grown by then.

As the article in question now has one template call and one hardcoded table and looks messy, do allow me to restore the previous version.

All the best, Pgallert (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that templates might be useful on other pages (like Elections in Namibia), which is why I didn't remove it from there or the other articles. The source format on the existing table is the standard type – it should not be written out in full like a citation.

Rather than have two equally bad templates on the page (it has the same problems as the presidential one), I've replaced the parliamentary results with a hardcoded template. I've also removed the zero invalid votes from the presidential table. Cheers, Number 57 13:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, cool. --Pgallert (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 South Shields F.C. season

Hi

I noticed my article is up for deletion. I can understand that wiki isnt just a source for stats and needs context maybe BUT in no way his the page I created any different to the likes of this - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Newcastle_United_F.C._season or this https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Brighton_%26_Hove_Albion_F.C._season. In fact these pages have more stats on them. Yes they are for bigger, more popular clubs but I dont understand the difference to be honest.

Can you let me know why these pages are not up for deletion yet mine is please?

thanks Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billquaymag (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Party lists in the European Parliament election, 2014 (Netherlands)

After our discussion on Talk:European Parliament election, 2014/ Candidate list/ Christian Democratic Appeal. I created Party lists in the European Parliament election, 2014 (Netherlands) and would like your feedback if this is what you had in mind, before i start on older elections. BasBr1 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Bangsamoro creation plebiscite listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Upcoming Bangsamoro creation plebiscite. Since you had some involvement with the Upcoming Bangsamoro creation plebiscite redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jc86035 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Billericay Town F.C.

You're right, sorry - I was reverting Billericay-related edits at Jeremie Lynch (different player) and this was collateral... GiantSnowman 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No worries. Number 57 20:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Turkey

Hi What your opinon to merging Next Turkish parliamentary election and Turkish presidential election, 2019 into Turkish general election, 2019 or Next Turkish general election ? Since the constitutional changes, parlementary and presidential elections will be held in the same day. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I would support that. Number 57 12:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

• From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

• News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

• Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

• Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

• Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

• Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

• In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

• Technology report: Latest tech news

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

• Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Parma season

I've seen your comment on Talk:2017–18 Parma season. The reason I didn't move it myself was that Wikipedia won't let me. I have no idea why as I've moved other pages since. Could you do so for me? mgSH 19:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Omgosh30: Now there's an RM I can't move it. Very odd that you can't as there's no page at the target. Number 57 20:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As 7 have passed and it's a straightforward move, what's the best way to get it moved? mgSH 20:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Omgosh30: The discussion has to be closed by someone who didn't participate in the discussion. It's now on the list of discussions to be closed at WP:RM so hopefully someone will do it soon. Number 57 20:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

AWB

It's part of my code - I'll remove it, cheers. GiantSnowman 09:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Regional elections

Hi! I see you're having some doubt about the timing of Spanish regional elections, so let me explain. All in all, you surely know there are four regions (Andalusia, Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia) with their own election timetables, while the rest of them (13 in total) have their elections held usually in the fourth Sunday of May (unless there's an European Parliament election nearby and it is held at a different date, such as happened in 1987 and 1999). However, electoral legislation in these 13 regions has evolved over time. Some changes involved granting regional premiers the prerogative to dissolve their parliaments and call a snap election on their own (at first, this was limited just to the four "historical" regions, and even so not from the very beginning). Despite this, there are some regions (Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, La Rioja, Madrid and Murcia, as far as I know) which have their election date still set for the fourth Sunday of May every four years (so, even if they call snap elections, those would just be some kind of "extra" elections, not really interfering with the legally-estalished four year-term).

However, all other regions (Aragon, Balearic Islands, Castile and León, Extremadura, Navarre and the Valencian Community) have achieved entirely independent timetables of their own. This is, they could have a snap election triggering an entirely fresh four year-term, which would mean they could go "rogue" just like Andalusia, Catalonia, the BC or Galicia. So, I've had articles set so as to reflect such a circumstance. Thus, we know that Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, La Rioja, Madrid and Murcia will have an election happening by May/June 2019 for sure, whereas for the others, making such an assumption could be WP:CRYSTALBALL, as it's not certain they will have an election held in 2019. Impru20 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Impru20: Thanks for the explanation! Number 57 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! ;) Impru20 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mahanaim

My modification on Mahanaim was not vandalism, on some translations based on the Massoretic version the last verse of Genesis 31 becomes Genesis 32:1 and what you call 32:1 becomes 32:2.

I am mostly based on french translation, but as KJV in english has your numbering you can ignore my modification. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobouh (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Next Singaporean presidential election

Hi Number 57, i tagged Next Singaporean presidential election for speedy deletion, as it meets the CSD at G8, because it is a broken redirect. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Belarusian parliamentary election, 2016

Hello! I see you reverted my edit on that page where I changed party names in the infobox from acronyms to the full form. While this is a trifling matter, I'd like to point out that this change was merely to make the names look uniform (because acronyms weren't used for the CPB and the BPP, although they could have been) and that at least two of them should be written differently - the Lib Dems prefer to abbreviate their party as 'LDPB' (ЛДПБ), at least in Russian, not 'LDP', and the United Civic (Civil?) Party actually has an English version of their website, where they abbreviate themselves in English as 'UCP', not 'OGP'. Still, if you'd like to uphold your opinion, I won't insist on mine. Sincerely, Svawald (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Consistency isn't required here. Some parties are known by acronyms whilst others aren't (see, for example, the infobox in United Kingdom general election, 2015 – three spelt out names and an abbreviation – these match how the parties are usually referred to). By all means change LDP to LDPB and UCP to OGB though. Cheers, Number 57 22:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation

You undid an edit I made, without bothering to explain why. How about you explain now why you did so? 95.145.130.78 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bolding the first few words of the article that cover the subject being discussed is standard. See Maltese Council of Government referendum, 1870, Maltese constitutional referendum, 1964, Maltese European Union membership referendum, 2003 etc. I've restored it again. Number 57 22:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:BOLDAVOID. Bolding is specifically for the title of the article, not words that merely resemble it. And bold text should not contain blue links. It's bad that you didn't know the style guidelines and very bad that you reverted to contravene them without bothering to explain why. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of MOS:BOLDAVOID, but obviously you're not aware that it's very widely implemented out of line with that. Virtually all election/referendum articles start with bolded text that doesn't match the article title (see, for example, United States presidential election, 2016, United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 or German federal election, 2017). Football articles are the same (e.g. Manchester United F.C. or Juventus F.C.). If you want to change widespread practice, you should start a discussion on this at an appropriate venue (e.g. WP:E&R or WT:FOOTY) rather than continue reverting on a couple of articles out of thousands. Thanks, Number 57 07:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If the guidelines say something, and practice is something else, then practice is clearly wrong. If the practice was acceptable, the guideline would have been changed. Now stop making articles violate the manual of style, and stop reverting for nonsensical reasons out of spite. 3RR will have to be next if you continue to edit war. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively (a) the guideline was implemented without an understanding of the reality or (b) the guideline is useless so widely ignored. I've given you evidence that the bolding practice is widespread and therefore obviously acceptable. As I said, start a centralised discussion on this rather than reverting on a handful of articles, which leaves them out of kilter with other election/referendum articles. If there's any spite going on here, I'm afraid it's solely on your part. You might want to learn to respect the WP:BRD cycle too. Number 57 09:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Filing spurious requests for page protection demonstrates the bad faith you are acting in. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the bad faith here is the failure to respect WP:BRD and repeatedly reverting after being given evidence that what you're doing isn't accepted practice. Are you going to do anything about the thousands of other election articles, or are you just going to leave an inconsistent mess? Number 57 09:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of a manual of style is to avoid an inconsistent mess. The MOS defines the accepted practice. If you disagree with the manual of style, try to get it changed. While the MOS says that there should be no blue links in bold text, I will remove blue links in bold text, and anyone restoring them in full knowledge of what the MOS says is simply vandalising. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, what about the thousands of other election/referendum articles? They quite clearly demonstrate accepted practice in this topic area. As do the football club articles. Do you not accept this to be the case? If not, why do you think all the articles have the bolding done like that? Number 57 10:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet again: the MOS defines what is accepted practice. I do not care how many thousands of articles are wrong. While the MOS says "put the article title in bold if it appears in the first sentence, and don't include any blue links in that", and while I see articles that get that wrong, I will fix them. Your attitude is weird and highly disruptive. Your malicious attempt to get the articles protected in the wrong state you prefer was an act of really vile bad faith. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet clearly it doesn't in this case as some of our most high profile articles completely ignore it. My attempt to get them protected was because of your refusal to accept WP:BRD, which is the real case of bad faith here. Number 57 21:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It clearly does. It always does. Articles which ignore it are wrong and should be fixed. You attempted to get the articles protected out of pure bad faith and, it seems, grotesque arrogance. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Beaconsfield Town FC

Thanks for your message earlier. I must admit I am not the most experienced when it comes to editing Wikipedia Pages. I am a fan and committee member of Beaconsfield Town FC and I wanted to ensure that the information you have on Wikipedia is up to date and accurate.

The kit colours are now correct so thank you for that. Additionally, the page Beaconsfield Town F.C. is creating a page on Facebook that is confusing for our fans. As a result they end up posting pictures on Instagram to the wrong page. (Instagram and Facebook are linked)

What I want to do is change the name to read Beaconsfield Town FC with no full stops.

Lastly, you mention about the username being incorrect. Should I change this to my name or committee member of Beaconsfield Town FC. I want to be able to update the page as we have new news.

Thank you.

Beaconsfieldfc (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I realise I may have posted his in the wrong place. Apologies. Beaconsfieldfc (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Much appreciated. Beaconsfieldfc (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Kazakhstani legislative election, 2016

Would it be ok if I moved it to Kazakh legislative election, 2016? Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Go for it, but please make sure you move the entire set of election/referendum articles! Cheers, Number 57 16:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Do I qualify for any userrights? I recall someone mentioning I could ask for autopatrol but im too newish here to get it... Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: To be totally honest, I have no idea. It's been a long, long time since I was new :) Number 57 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

lol. you've been here for 12 years. Nice job. should a template be moved as well? (wanted to ask before I move things) Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: If you like, but template names don't matter too much as they aren't visible on the articles. Number 57 20:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I gonna move it now. Artix (Message wall) 21:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

hi, can you move Kazakhstani legislative election, 2004? I have to ask an admin. Artix (Message wall) 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Done. Number 57 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

hi hi, sorry to bother you again. Kazakhstani presidential election, 2005, this too please. Artix (Message wall) 21:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Already done, and no trouble. Number 57 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

you're the best. Artix (Message wall) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Radzyner Law School

FYI, I removed the PROD tag you placed on this article because another article already PRODed it back in 2013 (see this dif). The article may ultimately need WP:TNT, but I admit that I am having trouble finding independent sources that discuss this law school, it's history, it's significance, etc. In any event, I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Q

I see you're an admin. That means you can delete pages. correct? So ugh, can delete the redirects in my userspace? Artix (Message wall) 00:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Let me know which ones. Number 57 10:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 5 These please. Artix (Message wall) 13:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: All done. Number 57 14:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Elections and referendums

The german federal election today (to which I submitted my vote just now, awaiting the results...) seems to be a good occasion to restart that project once again. I never discontinued to collect material, and at the moment it seems that I am only stuck with two countries Guatemala and Ecuador (although I am now able to read Spanish to some degree) - @Dereck Camacho:, as you already did some conrtibution to that difficult topic, would you join us here? Anyway, I will provide material on the Elections and referendums page.--Antemister (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help. Among my plans for the future was to finish all the elections in Costa Rica for example, as articles only get till 1913. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Turkmenistani presidential election, 2007

I am unable to move this to Turkmen presidential election, 2007 Artix (Message wall) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: Done. Number 57 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've completed the rest. Artix (Message wall) 18:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)